AuthorTopic: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund (Read 553535 times)

I have are hard time dealing with what I do not understand. This lawsuit is one such thing.

To me when making a large donation it is only logical to do at least some research first. And when donating to a specific project reading the project overview is a must.

In this case the first paragraph states:"The Earhart Project was inaugurated in November of 1988 with the stated purpose of investigating the Earhart/Noonan disappearance according to accepted academic standards and using sound scientific methodology."

This one line alone should have been enough to avoid the lawsuit.

After all "investigating the Earhart/Noonan disappearance" is not the same as "finding Earhart's airplane"A short exploration of the website reveals accounts of the processes used and artifacts found. But are "sifting screens" really used for finding an Aircraft? Any aircraft piece found in this manner could hardly be significant enough to be conclusive of anything.Instead it is quite clear by the artifacts found as to what the searchers are looking(Bottle pieces, compact, button, Shoe parts)These are the types of finds are valuable to the investigation of the people themselves but not so much location of the aircraft.

So let's say that the 2010 footage showed a piece of aircraft with a legible matching N-number. Assuming no maliciously placed evidence, it would be quite conclusive. Would even that eliminate the need for the next expedition?Instead it would increase the need, value, and excitement of that mission. After all at that point it moves TIGHAR's theories to the brink of confirmed fact.This type of footage would change the next expedition in what activities and methods are used.It would also change the possible out-come of success to the certainty of success. But in no way would it eliminate the need for it.

So with this reasoning, I wonder what that certain person is thinking?Does he really expect anyone to believe he has a desire to help the cause when its chances of success are in question. However, when he has the knowledge/belief that success is not only possible but assured, he is unwilling to do so?

I am grateful for all his contributions both financially and otherwise. I found his posts and photographic analysis interesting. Interesting enough that I reviewed all of the posts trying to see what he claimed was there.Sometimes I could see what he was talking about right off and other times I struggled.In the end, with no size reference the only conclusion I could make is by shape comparison. Shape recognition hardly meets TIGHAR's "accepted academic standards and using sound scientific methodology" standards.

If I am wrong about this I have a great announcement.In my younger days I laid out on my lawn watching the clouds above.Using this same technique I was able to discover many new creatures including - white fluffy flying dogs, rabbits and dragons!

I am also perplexed how that certain individual can feel taken advantage of to the degree that warrants a lawsuit, but still chooses to support TIGHAR by continuing to visit and contribute to the website.

In the end I strongly believe TIGHAR will be successful in determining a larger part of the details of the end of AE's flight and life. All they need is open mindedness and persistence. I wish TIGHAR much luck and will be watching (donation coming soon).

To that specific person I would wish to say...Amelia Earhart is woven into our culture to such a degree that after all this time her story still captivates us. When TIGHAR is able to produce conclusive evidence, the story will be unprecedented.The bulk of books on AE will go from conspiracy theories to the story of TIGHAR's quest against time to find her.You have already intertwined yourself into TIGHAR's Project Earhart. In this story that will be documented for the future why do you want to be moved from TIGHAR Hero to TIGHAR foe?Since your lawsuit can only add adversity to TIGHAR's goals, there is no doubt you will be portrayed as the villain.

Although, I would love a response explaining his reasoning and logic so I could understand, I do not expect one.I only send this out into the internet as a mental exercise to help me deal with the facts I cannot understand.

So let's say that the 2010 footage showed a piece of aircraft with a legible matching N-number. Assuming no maliciously placed evidence, it would be quite conclusive. Would even that eliminate the need for the next expedition?Instead it would increase the need, value, and excitement of that mission. After all at that point it moves TIGHAR's theories to the brink of confirmed fact.This type of footage would change the next expedition in what activities and methods are used.It would also change the possible out-come of success to the certainty of success. But in no way would it eliminate the need for it.

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

In short, the goal line should have been crossed by now.

lets propose for a moment that your images are encrusted airplane pieces.

It sounds to me like you are admitting that tighar did not see the airplane in the video that was taken in 2010. How can you sue for fraud if even you are saying they did not analyze the video enough to know one way or the other until now?? Is your suit not based upon the fact that tighar had found the plane in 2010 yet still knowingly used your money for another search for said plane?? Just because they walked by a piece of evidence does not mean it was found...... you have to prove that they knowingly found it and misrepresented that fact. an ill-conceived, ill-managed expedition is not fraud

Amelia with Tim's grandfather, and again with Tim's aunt Ailsa included.

Back in the 1930's.

With Tim's family connections with Earhart, and Pan Am's connections with both Earhart and Noonan (Tim currently owns Pan Am), it is puzzling why he is intent on harming the only organization that is actively trying to solve the Earhart/Noonan mystery.

It sounds to me like you are admitting that tighar did not see the airplane in the video that was taken in 2010. How can you sue for fraud if even you are saying they did not analyze the video enough to know one way or the other until now?? Is your suit not based upon the fact that tighar had found the plane in 2010 yet still knowingly used your money for another search for said plane?? Just because they walked by a piece of evidence does not mean it was found...... you have to prove that they knowingly found it and misrepresented that fact. an ill-conceived, ill-managed expedition is not fraud

That's an excellent point, Kevin -- this post would seem to contradict the fundamental assertion of the suit.

Feel free to clarify if you feel differently, Tim. If you do, I'd add another follow-up: your last post laments that "the goal line should have been crossed by now" (referring to the verification of the wreckage you claim is documented in the 2010 footage). I understand from your POV why you feel that way, even though I don't agree with your findings. But again, supposing you're 100% right, how does the suit move anyone or anything closer to that goal line, yourself included? I think this is what so many of us struggle to comprehend. Even if we disagree with your opinions but can respect your right to interpret the data as you choose, this feels very much like you're blowing up the whole operation in retaliation for what you consider one failed or deliberately misdirected effort. It hurts TIGHAR, to be sure, but it also dramatically hurts any chance you have of moving your thesis forward. I realize I'm writing the same thing many others have expressed on this thread already, so my hopes for understanding remain tempered.

Today the Legal Defense Fund balance is $5,970. There have been 39 contributors. Individual donations range from $5 to $2,500. The most common amount is $100 (15 contributors at that amount). Obviously we're going to need a lot more. How much more will depend upon on how long the suit drags on.

Here's what's going to happen. On Monday, we'll file a Motion for Dismissal. The other side will have until August 15 to file a written response. The judge will then rule on whether to dismiss the suit. Although in this case totally justified, Motions for Dismissal are also standard procedure and rarely granted. If the motion is not granted it does not mean that the suit has merit, only that the judge wants to hear more. That's fine. We have lots to tell and nothing to hide.

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

In short, the goal line should have been crossed by now.

What other contractor should they have used? What better equipment? Extra cost? Recall the selected contractor managed to find some black boxes lots of other people/military (unlimited budget outfits) were not able to. Nothing wrong with hiring luck. If the sonar anomaly turns out to be the airplane you have luck. I say that due to the technical issues going on.

Looks like you were a major contributor for the 2012 expedition that made it even possible. There was no 2011 expedition due to funding no doubt. They have already admitted the 2012 mission was rushed in some ways due to politics: 2012 election, state department, etc. Let’s not forget the other expeditions that brought out clues to convince the public the mystery is solved.

After looking over the facts out there the mystery is solved. You have RDF direction finder logs, eyewitnesses to aircraft debris on the island… What stronger evidence is there than an eyewitness combined with historical logs? Bodies? That is already covered to some degree with the bones found and then lost.

Although I write that the mystery is solved I would love to see the smoking gun. And that is going to be parts of the actual aircraft as anything else is very hard to find and prove to the public. That is if it survived that long in that environment.

The images in the last newsletter from the video where the skull is pointed out I am reminded of the Ailenware PC logo. I just don’t see anything that I can make out as human remains.

If you feel the aircraft should have already been found I am curious as to how you think it should be found in detail. What outfit would you hire? How much do you estimate it would cost? How long would you say a search would take? I, as well as others, am a skeptic of anything in the 2010 video so I am not asking to get the answer of ‘it has already been found in that video’.

Did TIGHAR fail by not going specifically to that very place and shaking the dust off of those 'things' to see? I'm sure all would love it had TIGHAR been able to do so, but as we know, finding the precise spot is problematic due to lack of specific location information, and because some of the features seen in 2010 may have moved on or been disturbed since, for whatever reasons. We can also look keenly at these things, IMO, and make a reasonable argument that there is not enough present in that video to warrant the effort.

In reality, the 2012 videos (both Standard Definition and High Definition) with precise position (see Site #1 in Research Bulletin #63/65) show objects from the same Debris Field as the 2010 HD video.

The notion that the locatioin is "unknown" is a crock. 985 to 1010 feet deep due West of the presumed Nessie location.

You are correct that things have shifted somewhat in the intervening two years. But how would anyone know unless they carefully examined the videos. Have you? Have you even seen the sixteen minutes of High Definition video from 2012?

The bottom line in all of this is that every cent and every ounce of energy spent on defending this, or any lawsuit, whether frivolous or justified, is time and money NOT spent on solving the mystery that we all are here to solve. The way I view it, the only people who will come out ahead in this will be the lawyers, who will be paid regardless of which way the suit is decided.

"Shapes", "Looks like's", "could be's", are nothing until the object is in hand or a clear picture of the object (uncovered) showing a name or number is at least 'readable'. It reminds me of a box I shipped via UPS recently to an associate that contained two pair of high priced clothing, and UPS somehow switched the labels with another box (I believe it was theft but I didn't see it happen so this is just SPECULATION on my part) and when my associate opened the box to find some hoses and guages (have no idea what they were for)...well you can imagine the surprise to both of us. Until the item is opened (coral removed) and phylically looked at, then NO ONE knows what is in the box or under the cover (coral). NO ONE!

It wasn't necessary for you to reply to my post.Since you did I find it very interesting that your reply only focused on my "hypothetical scenario" and ignored the rest.

My point with the hypothetical scenario was to explain that even with evidence (more conclusive than your "evidence") that the expedition would still be necessary. You see, I was operating under the premise that your lawsuit was about TIGHAR withholding data in order to trick you into funding an unnecessary expedition. (A notion placed in my head by various news articles and public statements by your lawyer).But from your reply I now realize that instead of fraud your lawsuit is about inept management (" ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.")

Good luck, sounds like you will need it. The results (TIGHAR has to date) seem to disprove "ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment". Especially if as you claim they found the plane (Something no one else has acheived , despite many, many , many others having tried. )

So let's say that the 2010 footage showed a piece of aircraft with a legible matching N-number. Assuming no maliciously placed evidence, it would be quite conclusive. Would even that eliminate the need for the next expedition?Instead it would increase the need, value, and excitement of that mission. After all at that point it moves TIGHAR's theories to the brink of confirmed fact.This type of footage would change the next expedition in what activities and methods are used.It would also change the possible out-come of success to the certainty of success. But in no way would it eliminate the need for it.

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.